Your competitive alternatives are the options customers would use if your offer did not exist. They include direct competitors, adjacent products, manual work, internal hires, postponement and doing nothing. Identify them from recent customer decisions, then compare the strengths customers value in each. Positioning becomes useful when it explains why your strengths matter in that real choice—not when it declares you unique in isolation.
Begin with the customer’s decision
A competitor list assembled from search results often misses the most important alternative. A team considering a research platform may also use interviews in spreadsheets, hire an agency or defer the work. Each option has advantages. A spreadsheet may be familiar; an agency may provide expertise; delay may preserve cash.
Ask customers and lost prospects:
- What were you doing before you looked for a change?
- Which other approaches did you seriously consider?
- What made those approaches attractive?
- What made you hesitate?
- What would you have done if you had not chosen this option?
This is consistent with the GOV.UK Service Manual’s guidance to learn how people currently complete a task and what problems they experience. The answers also help you choose a market category that reflects the buying situation.
Build an alternative evidence table
Create one row per alternative and capture:
| Alternative | Why customers choose it | Where it struggles | Evidence source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Existing process | Familiar, no new purchase | Time or inconsistency | Interviews, observation | Medium |
| Direct product | Known category, expected features | Relevant limitation | Win/loss notes | High |
| Internal solution | Control and customisation | Maintenance or scarce expertise | Sales calls | Low |
| Do nothing | Avoids cost and disruption | Problem continues | Lost-deal follow-up | Medium |
Separate observations from assumptions. “Customers dislike competitor onboarding” is an assumption until multiple relevant customers describe that concern or behaviour.
Compare valued strengths, not feature inventories
Feature grids tempt teams to highlight any difference. A difference matters only when it helps the intended customer make progress in the buying situation.
For each alternative, ask:
- Which outcomes does it deliver well?
- What trade-off does the customer accept?
- Which of our capabilities changes that trade-off?
- Why can we credibly provide that capability?
Turn the result into a draft positioning statement. The comparison should be visible in the reasoning, even if the competitor is not named in public copy.
Illustrative example
Illustrative example: a B2B software company helps regional retailers forecast stock. The founders initially list two forecasting products as competitors. Customer interviews reveal that most prospects use exported sales data, spreadsheets and the judgement of store managers.
The spreadsheet alternative is flexible and already understood. Its weakness is not that it lacks artificial intelligence; it is that updates depend on one analyst and local knowledge is difficult to reconcile. The startup therefore positions around a shared forecasting process that combines sales history with store-level adjustments. This is hypothetical and would need validation with relevant buyers.
Make the alternative visible in messaging
You can acknowledge the current approach without attacking it:
- “Replace scattered spreadsheet forecasts with one reviewable plan.”
- “Give every site the same evidence without removing local judgement.”
- “Move from quarterly research projects to a repeatable interview record.”
The useful pattern is current approach → important limitation → relevant difference → outcome. Test whether the intended audience recognises the current approach. If not, revise your premise before polishing the sentence.
Use positioning validation to test comprehension, relevance and comparison rather than asking whether people “like” the wording.
Limitations and trade-offs
Customers in different segments may use different alternatives, so one comparison cannot serve every market. Directly naming competitors may aid clarity but create legal, tone and maintenance risks; factual comparative claims need evidence. Alternative research also dates quickly when products or buying conditions change.
The US Federal Trade Commission says advertisers need a reasonable basis for objective claims before dissemination. UK advertisers should also follow the CAP Code. Keep a claim register containing the wording, evidence, owner and review date.
Frequently asked questions
Are direct competitors always the main alternative?
No. The current process, an internal hire or no action may be more common. Evidence from actual decisions should determine priority.
Should we name competitors on our website?
Only when the comparison genuinely helps readers and every objective claim is current, fair and supportable. Often it is enough to describe the familiar approach.
How often should we review alternatives?
Review them when entering a segment, after material product changes and whenever win/loss evidence shows the shortlist or buying process has changed.
Your useful next step
Review ten recent opportunities. Record the previous approach, shortlisted options and no-decision reason for each. Group repeated alternatives, then identify the one valued strength your offer can credibly improve upon.